Insider Stake Increase & Company Overview

Dynamic Technology Lab Private Ltd (“Dynamic Tech”) recently raised its stake in Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: ARWR) by 40.9% during Q1, adding 7,827 shares for a total of 26,969 shares (^[1]). This brought Dynamic Tech’s holdings to roughly $343,000 in value as of the latest SEC filing (^[1]). While this is a relatively small position (well under 1% of shares), it signals fresh institutional interest. Overall institutional ownership in Arrowhead is substantial – about 62.6% of the stock is held by hedge funds and other institutional investors (^[1]). Notably, major holders like Vanguard and T. Rowe Price also modestly increased their positions in the latest quarter (^[1]).

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals is a biotech company specializing in RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics. It has a broad pipeline targeting diseases in the liver, lungs, and beyond through its proprietary TRiM™ platform. The company often partners its drug candidates with larger pharmaceutical players for development and commercialization. Arrowhead’s current partnered programs include: olpasiran for cardiovascular disease (licensed to Amgen, now in Phase 3) (^[2]) (^[2]), fazirsiran for alpha-1 antitrypsin liver disease (co-developed with Takeda, in Phase 3) (^[2]), a hepatitis B therapy licensed to GSK (^[2]) (^[2]), and several earlier-stage candidates for pulmonary and metabolic diseases which it retains in-house. This partnering model provides upfront cash and milestone payments to fund R&D, at the cost of sharing future economics.

It’s worth mentioning that insider trading has been mixed. In the past quarter, an Arrowhead insider (James C. Hamilton) sold 15,000 shares at ~$25 in early September (^[1]), trimming his direct stake by ~5.7%. Corporate insiders as a group own a modest ~4.3% of Arrowhead’s stock (^[1]). The recent stake boost by Dynamic Tech and continued institutional ownership indicate that many professional investors remain interested in Arrowhead’s long-term prospects despite ongoing losses (detailed below).

Dividend Policy & Yield

Arrowhead does not pay a dividend and has no history of dividend payments. The company’s forward dividend yield is 0.00%, reflecting a deliberate policy to reinvest all capital into growth rather than return cash to shareholders (^[3]). This is unsurprising for a clinical-stage biotech – Arrowhead has negative earnings and cash flow, making a dividend impractical. In fact, Arrowhead’s new debt covenants explicitly restrict it from paying dividends or making other distributions, which is standard for such growth-focused borrowings (^[2]). Investors should not expect any income from this stock in the near or medium term. Instead, Arrowhead’s “shareholder returns” are intended to come via stock price appreciation if its drug candidates succeed.

(Note: AFFO/FFO metrics are not applicable here – those are REIT cash flow measures. In Arrowhead’s case, traditional cash flow or earnings metrics are negative, as discussed below.)

Leverage & Debt Maturities

Arrowhead’s capital structure has recently shifted with the addition of significant leverage. In August 2024, the company entered into a Financing Agreement led by Sixth Street Partners, obtaining a $500 million senior secured term loan facility (^[2]). Of this, $400 million was funded at closing and an incremental $100 million is available at the company’s option (with lender consent) (^[2]). The credit facility carries a hefty 15.0% annual interest rate and matures on August 7, 2031, with a seven-year term (^[2]). Importantly, there are no required amortization payments before maturity – the full principal comes due in 2031 (^[2]). Arrowhead can prepay at any time, but otherwise interest accrues until a bullet repayment at maturity (^[2]).

This loan is sizeable relative to Arrowhead’s scale, and the interest cost is significant – roughly $60 million per year on the initial $400M draw. To help manage this burden, the deal allows Arrowhead to defer cash interest: up to $435.3 million in additional “delayed draw” loans can be tapped specifically to pay interest on the facility (^[2]). In other words, Arrowhead has the option to capitalize its interest payments by borrowing more, effectively a built-in Payment-In-Kind feature. This structure gives flexibility while the company has minimal revenue, but it will increase the debt principal over time if utilized. If Arrowhead drew the full interest support, total debt could swell to ~$835 million (plus any optional $100M tranche) by 2031 (^[2]) (^[2]). All debt is secured by substantially all assets, including Arrowhead’s intellectual property (^[2]).

Aside from this term loan, Arrowhead has another large liability from a royalty monetization deal. In late 2022, the company sold most of its rights to future royalties from olpasiran (the Amgen-partnered cardio drug) to Royalty Pharma in exchange for up to $410 million in funding (^[2]) (^[2]). Arrowhead received $250 million upfront and a $50 million milestone in mid-2024 when Amgen’s Phase 3 trial fully enrolled (^[2]). Another $50 million will be due upon FDA approval of olpasiran, and $60 million once annual royalties exceed $70M (^[2]). In return, Royalty Pharma gets 100% of Amgen’s royalty payments on olpasiran if the drug is approved (^[2]). Accounting-wise, this is treated as debt: Arrowhead recorded a $300 million liability for the funds received (^[2]). However, the loan is non-recourse to Arrowhead – if olpasiran fails, Arrowhead keeps the money without obligation to repay Royalty Pharma (^[2]). If olpasiran succeeds, Royalty Pharma’s “repayment” comes from the drug’s royalties. As of June 30, 2024 the carrying value of this royalty liability was ~$336 million, with an effective interest rate of 6.3% used to amortize it via expected future royalties (^[2]).

Beyond the Sixth Street term loan and the royalty obligation, Arrowhead has minimal traditional debt. It does have operating lease commitments and will owe interest expense on the term loan going forward. Prior to obtaining the loan, Arrowhead’s reported interest expense was solely the non-cash accrual on the Royalty Pharma liability (~$17.7M in the first 9 months of FY2024) (^[2]). With the new 15% loan, cash interest costs will rise sharply, though the company may borrow to cover interest in the short term. The term loan comes due in 2031, creating a major maturity in seven years. By then Arrowhead will need either successful product launches (to generate cash for repayment), a refinancing, or other strategic solutions. This long-dated debt significantly leverages the company’s future on pipeline success.

Interest Coverage & Liquidity Position

Given Arrowhead’s negative earnings, traditional interest coverage ratios are not meaningful – the company cannot cover interest from operating profits at this time. In fact, Arrowhead reported a net operating loss of $438.9 million for the nine months ended June 30, 2024 (^[2]). It had virtually no revenue in that period (just $3.6M, down from $224.6M the prior-year period when large one-time license revenues were recognized) (^[2]). The ballooning loss was driven by a steep rise in R&D expenses as Arrowhead’s pipeline advanced (R&D spend jumped ~46% year-on-year) (^[2]). General overhead costs also rose modestly, but R&D is the dominant expense. Arrowhead does not break out R&D by program, but management acknowledges costs “continue to increase as the pipeline…expanded and progressed through clinical trial phases” (^[2]). With no product sales yet, the company is relying on external funding – equity raises, partnership payments, and debt – to fund operations and cover interest obligations.

Liquidity: Arrowhead’s cash runway is a critical focus. As of June 30, 2024, the company held $69.4 million in cash and equivalents plus $367.3 million in short-term investments (^[2]). This ~$437M of liquidity (excluding restricted cash) was bolstered by a large equity offering completed in January 2024, when Arrowhead sold ~15.79 million shares at $28.50 for net proceeds of $429.3 million (^[2]). Even after heavy R&D spending, Arrowhead stated that based on its June 30 cash balance and plans, it had sufficient liquidity for at least 12 months of operations (^[2]) (i.e. through mid-2025).

Since that quarterly report, additional inflows have materialized which improve the liquidity outlook:

– $400 million debt funding: In August 2024, Arrowhead drew $400M from the new term loan facility (as discussed), substantially boosting the cash on hand (while adding debt). Notably, the loan terms allow Arrowhead to fund interest payments out of the remaining facility, reducing immediate cash interest drain (^[2]). This debt financing ensured Arrowhead has a large cash cushion to continue R&D over the next few years.

– Major licensing deals: Arrowhead has continued to monetize its pipeline via partnerships: In late 2024 it inked a licensing deal with Sarepta Therapeutics covering multiple early-stage muscle disease programs (^[4]). Arrowhead expects to receive up to $300 million by year-end 2025 from Sarepta, tied to Sarepta dosing the first patients in an ARO-DM1 trial (for a genetic muscle disorder) (^[4]). More recently, in September 2025 Arrowhead announced a $2 billion collaboration with Novartis for its Parkinson’s disease candidate ARO-SNCA (^[5]). This deal brings in a $200 million upfront payment from Novartis, with the rest dependent on milestones and royalties (^[5]). These anticipated payments – $200M from Novartis and $300M from Sarepta – are significant relative to Arrowhead’s cash needs. If realized on schedule, they would materially replenish the company’s cash (nearly $500M combined).

Thanks to these financings, Arrowhead’s pro-forma liquidity appears strong for the medium term. By late 2025, the company could have well over $1 billion in cash (including the loan and new licensing upfronts), assuming operating burn remains near current levels. This would comfortably cover a few years of R&D expenditures and interest outlays. It’s important to note, however, that the Sarepta milestones are contingent on trial progress and Sarepta’s commitment (Sarepta has faced recent setbacks and restructuring) (^[4]). Arrowhead’s management has asserted that Sarepta “remains committed” and that contractual milestones are expected despite Sarepta’s cost-cutting (^[4]). If a partner were unable or unwilling to pay a milestone, Arrowhead’s recourse could be to terminate that agreement (^[4]) – which might restore program rights but not replace the lost cash. In summary, Arrowhead’s ability to fund operations is heavily reliant on these external sources. The company has skillfully raised capital through partnerships and financing, but it must continue to do so until internal cash flows (product sales or substantial royalties) materialize.

Valuation & Comparables

Traditional valuation metrics paint an unusual picture due to Arrowhead’s lack of earnings. The company’s earnings per share (EPS) is deeply negative ($-3.63 over the first 9 months of FY2024) (^[2]), and it trades at a negative P/E. Price-to-cash-flow or P/FFO are not meaningful either given negative operating cash flow. Even revenue-based multiples are skewed: Arrowhead reported only $3.6M of revenue in the recent 9-month period (^[2]) (after recognizing $224M in the prior year from one-time license payments). Annualizing current revenue would imply an astronomical price-to-sales ratio, but that isn’t informative since future milestone and royalty revenues could be orders of magnitude higher if the pipeline succeeds. In essence, Arrowhead’s valuation is based on its pipeline prospects and partnership deals, not on near-term financial results.

At a share price around $21–22, Arrowhead’s market capitalization is roughly $2.6–2.7 billion. For context, the company has approximately $0.5–0.8 billion in net assets (pro-forma for recent cash infusions and debt). This suggests a price-to-book ratio in the range of 5x. Investors are thus valuing Arrowhead at several times its accounting book value, reflecting significant intangible value in its RNAi platform and drug candidates. It’s illustrative that Arrowhead’s potential milestone pipeline from existing partnerships is also about $2.7 billion (management notes it is eligible for up to $2.7 billion in remaining development, regulatory and sales milestones across all deals) (^[2]). In a sense, the market cap is roughly equal to the total partnered milestone pool – implying the market assigns a probability-weighted value to those milestones (plus any unpartnered assets). Of course, not all milestones will be achieved, and they will arrive over many years if at all, so their risk-adjusted present value is lower. But this comparison highlights how investors are valuing Arrowhead primarily on future potential rather than current fundamentals.

A peer comparison is useful. Among RNA therapeutics companies, Arrowhead sits in an intermediate position. Larger, more mature peers like Alnylam (RNAi pioneer with multiple marketed drugs) trade at much higher market caps (~$15–20B) and have real product revenue, while mid-size peer Ionis (~$6–7B) just had its first wholly-owned drug approved. Arrowhead’s ~$2.7B valuation reflects its status: a substantial pipeline and big-pharma partnerships, but no products on the market yet. If Arrowhead’s late-stage programs succeed and it begins earning royalties/profit-share (or launching its own products), one would expect its valuation to increase toward the level of those more established companies. Conversely, trial failures or partnership setbacks could justify a much lower valuation. In terms of valuation multiples, Arrowhead’s price is supported by its cash (over $600M net cash expected by early 2025) and the cumulative deal flow it has secured. The stock currently trades near the lower end of its 52-week range (~$20–40) (^[3]), suggesting the market has become more cautious in the past year amid biotech volatility and some partner-related uncertainties. The upside embedded in the stock is largely tied to clinical milestones in 2024–2026: for example, Phase 3 readouts for olpasiran (cardio) and fazirsiran (liver), Phase 2 results from other candidates, and further business development events. Downside risk would materialize if key programs disappoint or if funding needs force dilutive measures.

In summary, Arrowhead’s valuation is a story of future optionality. The company has multiple “shots on goal” in its pipeline, many backed by deep-pocketed partners. Each program carries binary risk, but success in any major indication (cholesterol, liver disease, etc.) could unlock royalty streams or commercial revenue that transform Arrowhead’s financial profile. For now, valuing Arrowhead involves weighing pipeline probabilities. The current ~$2.6B market cap implies investors, on average, expect a handful of Arrowhead’s programs to eventually reach market and generate cash – but perhaps with some discount for the fact that Arrowhead has partially sold off or partnered away rights on several assets.

Risks & Red Flags

Like any development-stage biotech, Arrowhead comes with significant risks. Key risk factors and red flags to note include:

– Ongoing Losses and Cash Burn: Arrowhead is deeply unprofitable and likely to remain so until drug approvals. In the latest quarter, it lost $170.8M, and losses for the first 9 months of FY2024 swelled to $429M (^[2]). Operating expenses (especially R&D) are increasing ~40–50% year-over-year (^[2]). While the company has raised cash, its burn rate is high, and any unforeseen trial costs or delays could widen losses further. The need for external financing will continue at least until one of its products reaches the market.

– Heavy Reliance on Partners: Arrowhead’s business model depends on larger partners to fund and advance its therapies. This creates exposure to partners’ decisions and fortunes. For example, Horizon Therapeutics (now part of Amgen) terminated its partnership on Arrowhead’s gout drug in late 2023, halting that program (^[2]). Similarly, Arrowhead’s stock dropped ~15% in mid-2025 when partner Sarepta Therapeutics hit setbacks (a trial death and portfolio cuts) (^[4]), raising concern it might not fulfill milestone commitments. If a partner changes strategic direction, encounters its own financial problems, or if a partnered program underperforms, Arrowhead can lose anticipated funding and momentum. The company has mitigated this by diversifying partnerships (Takeda, Amgen, GSK, Novartis, Sarepta, etc.), but partner risk remains significant.

– High Leverage & Financial Risk: Taking on 15% coupon debt introduces financial risk. This financing boosts cash in the near term but leaves Arrowhead with a large $400M (and potentially up to $900M+) debt overhang. The interest rate is steep, reflecting Arrowhead’s risk profile. Even though interest can be paid by borrowing more, that merely kicks the can down the road. By 2031, Arrowhead faces a daunting repayment if it hasn’t generated substantial cash by then. A high debt load also limits strategic flexibility and could become problematic if credit markets tighten or if Arrowhead’s clinical results disappoint (raising the specter of distress or dilution to manage the debt). Investors should monitor Arrowhead’s debt-to-equity and interest coverage in coming years as the debt accrues.

– Pipeline & Regulatory Risks: Arrowhead’s pipeline is expansive but still unproven. Many of its drug candidates are in mid- or early-stage trials, with inherent risk of clinical failure. For instance, lead program fazirsiran (for alpha-1 liver disease) is in Phase 3 – efficacy or safety issues in that trial could materially setback the company. Even olpasiran, while in Phase 3 under Amgen’s stewardship, must demonstrate outcomes benefits in cardiovascular disease. Any trial failure, safety scare, or regulatory hurdle (e.g. an FDA clinical hold) could destroy the value of the affected program and dent Arrowhead’s stock. The company is also moving into new delivery territories (e.g. inhaled RNAi for lung diseases); novel mechanisms may carry unexpected risks. With no products approved to date, Arrowhead still faces the fundamental biotech risk that some compounds look promising in early data but ultimately don’t succeed in Phase 3 or win FDA approval. Until the pipeline delivers an approved drug, this risk remains high.

– Intellectual Property and Competition: The RNAi therapeutic space is competitive and litigious. Notably, Ionis Pharmaceuticals has sued Arrowhead alleging that Arrowhead’s candidate for familial chylomicronemia syndrome (FCS) – called plozasiran – infringes Ionis’ patents (^[6]). Ionis just won FDA approval for its own FCS drug (olezarsen), and it’s seeking to block Arrowhead’s competing approach (^[6]). Arrowhead is countersuing to invalidate Ionis’s patents (^[6]), but the dispute could delay or impair Arrowhead’s FCS program. This highlights patent risk: larger companies and peers (Ionis, Alnylam, Dicerna/Novo, etc.) hold extensive RNAi IP, and Arrowhead must navigate without violating patents. Litigation could be costly and time-consuming, and an adverse outcome might force Arrowhead to pay royalties or even stop developing certain drugs. Separately, competition from other RNA therapy developers is intense. For example, in cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, Arrowhead’s RNAi drugs (like olpasiran or APOC3-targeting plozasiran) vie with antisense drugs (Ionis) or siRNAs from Alnylam. Even if Arrowhead’s candidates work, a crowded therapeutic landscape could limit market share or partnering opportunities.

– Dilution and Shareholder Dilution: Arrowhead has a history of issuing equity to fund operations (e.g. the $450M stock offering in 2024) (^[2]). Future dilution is a risk – if the stock remains depressed or if cash needs outpace incoming milestones, the company might sell more shares or convertible securities, diluting existing shareholders. This risk is somewhat alleviated by the debt financing and expected partner payments, but it never disappears for a pre-profit biotech. Investors should keep an eye on the share count (currently about 120 million) and any at-the-market offerings or secondary offerings.

– Insider Selling or Governance Flags: While not a major concern so far, it’s worth noting if insiders significantly unload shares. Recent sales (like the 15,000 shares sold by an insider in September) were small (^[1]), but any larger insider exodus could be a red flag. On governance, Arrowhead’s management team under CEO Christopher Anzalone has been stable and is generally well-regarded for deal-making. However, execution missteps (e.g. if they overextend the pipeline or misallocate capital) would be a risk factor to watch.

In summary, Arrowhead’s risks are typical for a late-clinical biotech: scientific and clinical failure, financing risk, partner dependence, and competitive/IP challenges. The company has multiple shots on goal, which diversifies risk to an extent, but a major failure in a flagship program or loss of a key partnership could significantly impair the valuation. Investors in ARWR need risk tolerance and a long-term view, as near-term volatility is likely.

Open Questions & Outlook

Can Arrowhead achieve commercial success before debt comes due? By 2031, the $400+ million loan must be repaid. That likely requires Arrowhead to have one or more approved products generating cash by then. The two most advanced programs – fazirsiran (for alpha-1 liver disease) and olpasiran (cardiovascular) – could potentially reach the market around 2025–2026 if all goes well. Fazirsiran’s Phase 3 (the REDWOOD study) is ongoing with Takeda; positive results could lead to approval and profit-sharing revenue in the U.S. (and royalties ex-US) a couple years from now (^[2]) (^[2]). Olpasiran’s large outcomes trial (OCEAN(a)) is managed by Amgen and will read out possibly in late 2024 or 2025; if it succeeds, Amgen could launch olpasiran in 2026, triggering regulatory milestone payouts to Arrowhead and eventually substantial royalties – though Arrowhead has sold the bulk of those royalties for upfront cash (^[2]). Will these programs cross the finish line in time? If even one becomes a marketed drug, Arrowhead’s financial profile would improve dramatically (via milestone receipts, royalties, or profit share), making the 2031 debt repayment more manageable. Failure of both Phase 3 programs, on the other hand, would leave Arrowhead with a heavy debt load and no easy way to service it, likely forcing tough choices well before 2031. This is a pivotal question for Arrowhead’s long-term investors.

Will the slew of partnership milestone payments actually materialize? Arrowhead has signed deals promising over $2.7 billion in future milestones (^[2]), but those are contingent on development progress. In the next 12–18 months, Arrowhead is slated to receive: $50M on olpasiran’s FDA approval (Royalty Pharma) (^[2]), up to $300M from Sarepta for ARO-DM1 trial initiation (^[4]), $100M from GSK if an obesity/steatosis drug enters Phase 3 (^[2]) (^[2]), and potentially others (e.g. Takeda $40M earned in 2023 for fazirsiran Phase 3 start (^[2]), with more on regulatory filings). A critical question: are partners fully committed to hitting these milestones? In Sarepta’s case, their gene therapy business upheaval cast some doubt, though they affirmed obligations to Arrowhead (^[4]). If any major partner delays development (for example, if GSK slowed or shelved the HBV or NASH program, or if Sarepta’s timelines slip), Arrowhead’s expected cash inflows could be deferred. So far, Arrowhead’s partners (Amgen, Takeda, GSK, etc.) are blue-chips likely to carry programs forward, but unexpected events (mergers, strategic shifts) can intervene – as seen with Horizon/Amgen dropping the gout drug (^[2]). Investors will be watching each partner program’s milestones closely. Arrowhead’s near-term finances look solid assuming milestones are paid as scheduled. Any shortfall or delay in those payments would raise the question of whether Arrowhead needs to tap more debt or equity in the interim.

Is Arrowhead trading long-term upside for near-term funding? Arrowhead has been very effective at licensing out programs to bring in nondilutive capital. However, each partnership means giving up a share of future economics. For instance, the Novartis deal for ARO-SNCA provides $200M now (^[5]), but Novartis will own that program’s rights globally – Arrowhead will only receive milestones and royalties if it succeeds (^[5]). The Royalty Pharma deal provided $250M upfront, but Arrowhead gave up all olpasiran royalty revenue (one of its most promising assets) (^[2]). The Sarepta alliance covers four programs and could net Arrowhead $240M in upfront/milestones (as of late 2024), but again Arrowhead gave away rights to those therapies in exchange for near-term cash (^[4]) (^[4]). These deals raise the strategic question: is management wisely funding the pipeline, or selling the crown jewels too cheaply? Thus far, the trade-offs seem reasonable – the upfront funds have enabled Arrowhead to advance a broad pipeline concurrently. But if any of these partnered drugs become blockbusters, Arrowhead’s share of long-term profits will be far smaller than if it had retained rights. For shareholders, there’s an implicit bet that Arrowhead will continue inventing new drugs (to partner or keep) faster than it “gives away” old ones. The open question is whether this model will yield a sustainably profitable company in the long run, or whether Arrowhead might evolve into a takeout candidate (given so much of its pipeline is partnered, a big pharma could decide to acquire the whole platform outright). Management has not indicated any intent to sell the company, but successful data from multiple programs could make Arrowhead an attractive acquisition target – especially to a partner that wants to consolidate rights instead of paying milestones.

How will Arrowhead deploy its growing cash trove? Assuming Arrowhead receives the major milestone payments expected in late 2024 and 2025 (Sarepta, Novartis, etc.), it could have over $1B in cash on hand. Even with a high burn rate, that might fund operations for several years. An open question is whether the company will accelerate or expand its R&D efforts with that cash. Arrowhead has been investing in new manufacturing and research facilities (capex was $117M in the first 9 months of FY2024) (^[2]), and it continues to push RNAi into new tissue types (muscle, pulmonary, CNS). With ample cash, it might take more programs into clinical trials without partners, aiming to capture full value if they succeed. Alternatively, management might choose to pay down debt early to save interest costs – the loan is prepayable at any time without penalty (^[2]). Investors will be looking for signals: will Arrowhead double down on its pipeline (and possibly need even more cash later), or begin to simplify and prepare for an eventual path to profitability by trimming expenses or debt? So far, management’s bias seems to be aggressive growth via R&D. This raises a final question of balance – can Arrowhead manage a pipeline of more than a dozen programs at once, or will it need to prioritize? The outcome of current late-stage trials may inform that strategy (a big win could fund everything, a big failure might prompt refocusing).

In conclusion, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals is at an inflection point. Insider and institutional investors increasing stakes signal confidence, but the company must execute on multiple fronts to justify that confidence. The next 1-2 years will bring pivotal clinical readouts and partner milestones. Success could validate Arrowhead’s RNAi platform and transform its financials (turning today’s investments into tomorrow’s recurring revenues). Failure or delays, on the other hand, would highlight the risks of its heavy spending and complex deals. Investors should monitor clinical news flow (Phase 3 results for olpasiran and fazirsiran, Phase 2 data from other candidates), partnership developments (e.g. GSK’s and Sarepta’s progress), and Arrowhead’s capital management decisions. Dynamic Tech’s added stake is a bullish sign, but ultimately Arrowhead’s fate rests on science and execution. This stock remains a high-risk, high-reward story: the coming milestones and trial outcomes (“catalysts”) are likely to determine whether ARWR stock rewards insiders’ optimism or tests investors’ patience further.

Sources: Dynamic Tech stake increase and institutional holdings (^[1]) (^[1]) (^[1]); Insider sale (^[1]); No dividend policy (^[3]) (^[2]); Sixth Street loan terms (^[2]) (^[2]) (^[2]); Royalty Pharma deal (^[2]) (^[2]) (^[2]); Interest expense and losses (^[2]) (^[2]); Cash/investments and 12-month liquidity guidance (^[2]) (^[2]); Equity raise proceeds (^[2]); Partnership revenues and milestones (^[2]) (^[4]) (^[5]); Horizon/Amgen termination (^[2]); Ionis litigation (^[6]); Sarepta partnership and risks (^[4]) (^[4]); GSK and Takeda deals (^[2]) (^[2]). Each cited reference provides supporting details as discussed above.

Sources

1. https://etfdailynews.com/2025/09/13/dynamic-technology-lab-private-ltd-grows-stake-in-arrowhead-pharmaceuticals-inc-arwr/
2. https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/879407/000162828024036104/arwr-20240630.htm
3. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ARWR/?p=ARWR
4. https://reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/sareptas-licensing-patner-arrowhead-expects-near-term-payments-despite-setbacks-2025-07-23/
5. https://reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/arrowhead-novartis-up-2-billion-deal-neuromuscular-therapy-license-2025-09-02/
6. https://reuters.com/legal/litigation/ionis-arrowhead-file-dueling-patent-lawsuits-over-genetic-disorder-drug-2025-09-11/

For informational purposes only; not investment advice.